Mainstream Climate Scientists Discover a Pause in Global Warming Ten Years After “Deniers”

Anyone who gets their news from anywhere other than ABC and Fairfax would be aware that global temperatures were flat for the last 20 years. Of course the activists were decrying “The Pause” as a lie of big oil or Trump or whatever. The computer models failed to predict The Pause so warming must be continuing and they chose to believe the models rather than the measured facts. And of course they continued to call disbelievers “deniers” and heretics.

 

But now the climate science team are starting to acknowledge The Pause and admit that perhaps hteir models are perhaps less than perfect. Amazing! Garbage In- Garbage Out even applies to climate models.

 

From Watts Up With That

 

The New ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming – a shocking admission by “Team Climate”

 

By MICHAEL BASTASCH AND DR. RYAN MAUE

A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade long “hiatus” in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.Anew paper, led by climate scientist Benjamin Santer, adds to the ever-expanding volume of “hiatus” literature embracing popular arguments advanced by skeptics, and even uses satellite temperature datasets to show reduced atmospheric warming.

More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation.

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the abstract of Santer’s paper, which was published Monday.

“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed,” reads the abstract, adding that “model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

The paper caught some prominent critics of global climate models by surprise. Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.tweeted “WOW!” after he read the abstract, which concedes “model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed” for most of the early 21st Century.

It’s more than a little shocking.

Full story at Watts Up With That

Hal G.P. Colebatch: The prophets of eco-doom: a perfect record of failure

CULTURAL HISTORY
The prophets of eco-doom: a perfect record of failure

by Hal G.P. Colebatch

News Weekly, June 3, 2017

Environmentalism, or at least its deep-green variety, has, by the clownishly failed predictions of its gurus and prophets, confirmed its place as a leader among those “sciences” in which a complete lack of factual accuracy bears not the slightest relationship to its proponents’ reputations or careers.

“Earth Day” was conceived 47 years ago, time enough for any catastrophic threats to the Earth forecast then to have materialised. At that time the late George Wald, a Nobel Laureate and professor of Biology at Harvard, predicted: “Civilisation will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

It didn’t.

The problems facing civilisation come chiefly from uncivilised men who denude landscapes by chopping down trees for fuel. Civilised men have available safe, clean nuclear energy, and if they live in a country like Australia, the means to quiet superstitious fears by building reactors in deserts.

At the same time as Professor Wald’s predictions of universal doom, Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University boosted his bank account with the best seller, The Population Bomb. This declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies. He stated that the “battle to feed humanity” was lost. In 1969 he told Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

The ludicrous nature of this doom mongering, looked back at from 2017, should speak for itself. Ehrlich was peddling a sort of doom pornography.

If anyone had taken it seriously, rather than as a subject for a cheap thrill, they would have been laying down stocks of food, guns and ammunition, and, like some American “survivalists” (whose fears came from a different direction), preparing refuges in the Outback against the coming Armageddon. On that first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned: “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

Instead of being sacked from his chair, or being offered a job as a circus clown, since then, showing the limitless human appetite for flim-flam, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award. As that well-known social philosopher Charles Manson put it: “You can convince anyone of anything if you push it to them all the time.”

In an article for The Progressive, Ehrlich predicted: “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”

Of course, the first influential proponent of ecological doom was Thomas Malthus, the first edition of whose Essay on the Principle of Population was published in 1798. Neither Malthus nor Karl Marx, with the Theory of Increasing Misery, foresaw that improved agricultural and industrial production and technology would lead to the Earth being able to support populations many times larger and at a much higher level than they imagined.

Thus, with the “green revolution” allowing at least countries with good governments to feed themselves, a new hobgoblin was called for. How many of us remember that in the 1970s the existential threat hanging over mankind was not global warming but global cooling?

In International Wildlife of July 1975, one Nigel Calder warned: “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” In Science News the same year, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organisation is reported as saying: “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent that within “a few years”, snowfalls would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” In the following years, Britain saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.

In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience: “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

2000 has come and gone, and there is no ice age in sight.

Also in 1970, Senator Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look magazine: “Dr S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian, believes that in 25 years [ie, by 1995], somewhere between 75 and 80 per cent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

A chart in Scientific American that year estimated that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would disappear before 1990. In 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

Hurricane Drought Continues in USA

Despite the alarmist squeals of the climate change crowd that the frequency of “extreme weather events” (one of those very vague terms that the very unscientific boosters of man-made climate change like to use to hide the fact that they are telling porkies), the US is undergoing a very large hurricane drought that has lasted for 4001 days- almost 11 years.

The Greens will be all over Hurricane Michael when or if it lands in Florida and say it is evidence of man-made climate change and we must act now, as if this is the first ever category 3 storm to hit America.

The fact is that the southern parts of the USA like the northern parts of Australia have historically been subject to regular tropical storms- called cyclones in Australia, hurricanes in the USA.

Here is a graph that looks at the 78 hurricanes to hit the US since 1900. For each one (labelled 1 to 78) on the horizontal axis, the graph shows the days between that storm and its predecessor. The red line shows an estimated “trend” line, although I am not sure that on this type of graph that is very helpful, especially as we do not yet know if this latest “drought” will be followed by a dozen storms in quick succession.

From wattsupwiththat.com

If there is any statistical link between temperature, CO2 and storm occurrences I think it is clear that rising temperatures are associated with fewer storms not more.

Another “Climate Science” Fail”- The Grolar Bear

A couple of months ago the ABC was all over the claim that declining Arctic ice due to “climate change” was causing polar bears to have more encounters with their grizzly cousins and that more hybrids were being seen. It turns out that the alleged “grolars”  were just blond grizzlies. Let’s not let the facts get in the way of the climate doom narrative.

From WUWT:

The unbearable lightness of polar bear ‘climate science’

From the “Emily Litella” department (never mind) and Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford, comes yet another hilarious take-down of attempts to link polar bears and climate change last month. Turns out it’s just a blonde. Paging Andrew Derocher! Cleanup on aisle 5!

Dr. Crockford writes:

All the hubris last month about polar bear x grizzly hybrids, based on an unusual-looking bear killed near Arviat, has turned out to bewishful thinkingby those who’d like to blame everything to do with polar bears on climate change. An awful lot of “experts” now have egg on their faces.That “hybrid” was just a blonde grizzly, as I warned it might.

grizzly-polar-bear-hybrid_arviat-2016-didji-ishalook

 

Full story here

The Earth is Dying/ Died 40 years ago/ or something

The usual predictable dire warning that surround Earth Day have been somewhat overshadowed by the celebrations of the Queen’s 90th Birthday. Stupid humans we are too busy living to notice we are supposed to be dead.

Here are some of the predictions made at the time of the first Earth Day in 1970- and this was even before they invented Global Warming.

More Climate Change Craziness

The Climate Change panic just keeps on producing weird dysfunctions in energy systems around the world. A couple of years ago it was Britain converting power stations from burning  local coal to running on wood imported from the US- all in the name of carbon credits.

Now it seems plausible that Germany’s obsession with “green” power such as solar has raised their power costs to such a level that China will be able to export cheap coal power there at half the price.

Jo Nova writes:

Get a load of this.  China has been adding a new idle coal fired plant nearly every week. It is building368 coal fired plants and planning a further 803.The Greens think the Chinese have over capitalized, made a bubble, and have built a bunch of white elephants (maybe they have). But Germany has crippled its electrical generators in order to make the weather cooler, and pays exorbitant prices per kilowatt hour that are driving businesses overseas.Merkel is still trying to get solar powerto work in a land where the only thing that will make the current panels economic is if the Earth changes its orbital tilt.

Well say hello to the savvy Chinese investors who may be able to solve both problems. It seems hard to believe but all that surplus energy might just find its way to Germany. With new ultra hot coal power there is talk they can produce electricity so incredibly cheap they can send it on ultra high voltage lines all the way to Berlin. Barking? They’ll probably earn carbon credits for doing it too.

Coal’s future burns bright— Graham Lloyd

Greenpeace likes to think that China’s future coal plant projections are the result of “dysfunctional planning systems and cheap credit’’.

But there is another possibility highlighted by Britain’sFinancial Times: that is, that China’s proposed investment in long-­distance, ultra-high voltage power transmission lines will pave the way for power exports from China to as far away as Germany.

Liu Zhenya, chairman of State Grid, told reporters that wind and thermal power produced in Xinjiang could reach Germany at half the present cost of electricity there.

… the World Coal Association maintains new high-­efficiency coal technology will deliver power at half the cost of gas and one-fifth the price of wind in Asian countries in the future.

China looks to export surplus energy to Germany— Financial Times

Talk of exporting power is a reversal for China, which as recently as 2004 suffered rolling blackouts across its manufacturing heartland. But huge investments in power in the decade since, and the construction of a number of dams, nuclear reactors and coal-fired plants due to begin operating in the next 10 years, mean the country faces a growing surplus.

The distance from the edge of China to Berlin is apparently only 600km further than across China to Shanghai. And China hasnuclear power, many hydroelectric dams, and also other markets along the way — like Pakistan and India. They have 32 nuclear power plants in operation, 22 under construction, more about to start, and even more in the planning stage.

China is happy to pay lip-service to the Paris Climate Deal — it doesn’t have to do anything different for 15 years when population growth meant it was going to slow emissions then anyway. Meanwhile the Paris deal hobbles competition, and tosses money at China to shift from older, higher emissions power to newer cleaner styles.

 

Unintended Consequences of “Settled Science”

From Jo Nova: This is the natural result of determining science to be settled with a high degree of confidence. They’ve been telling us for years that the “debate is over” (even though the predictions consistently fail), and now they are squealing because CSIRO management is taking them seriously.

CSIRO wipes out climate division — 350 scientists to go — since it’s “beyond debate” who needs em?

BREAKING BUN FEST: Hysterical. The contradictions in the propaganda are biting back viciously. Isn’t karma a bitch?

If climate change is solved and beyond debate, who needs climate scientists?

CSIRO has announced it will axe 300  to 350 climate jobs, which will “wipe out” the climate division. The head of the CSIRO wants to focus on climate adaption and mitigation instead. Suddenly a lot of Profs who told us the debate was over are squealing that it needs more research. Climate science was “beyond debate” and in need of action, but now we “need to know more about the basic operation of the climate”. Oh the dilemma!

The head of the CSIRO is doing what the Greens say they want — moving beyond the debate and putting more money into adaption and mitigation. Where’s the Greens statement applauding him…?

With up to 350 scientist jobs under fire at maybe $250k per year (including super, admin, and other on-costs), that means there is around $90m at stake.

This is a CSIRO management decision:

“Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist said before the announcement.

In the email sent out to staff on Thursday morning, CSIRO’s chief executive Larry Marshall indicated that, since climate change had been established, further work in the area would be a reduced priority. — SMH

The CSIRO are just doing the obvious thing after Paris. There is no science debate, they are moving on to “adaption”, and “mitigation”:

CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said the changes would see the organisation move away from measuring and monitoring climate change, to instead focus on how to adapt to it.

“It’s inevitable that people who are gifted at measuring and modelling climate may not be the same people who are gifted at figuring out what to do about it how to mitigate it,” he said.

“Some of the climate scientists will be able to make that transition and some won’t.” — ABC

Scientists are tying themselves in knots to explain why it’s appalling that there is a loss of safe, low turnover jobs to study something that is “proven”. Gee, just as well they aren’t coal miners.

Professor Penny Sackett –a  former Australian Chief Scientist who now works for the Climate Change Institute at ANU.

“I am stunned by reports that CSIRO management no longer thinks measuring and understanding climate change is important, innovative or impactful. Paris did not determine whether or not climate change is happening, scientists who generate and study big data did. The big question now, which underlies all climate adaptation work, is ‘How is the climate changing?’”

So we don’t know how the climate is changing? So Penny, when did you mention that all the predictions of floods and droughts and terrible storms were uncertain?

Prof Will Steffen suddenly admits “we” don’t know the basic operation of the climate system:

Professor Will Steffen is an Emeritus Professor at ANU and a Climate Councillor at the Climate Council of Australia.

“This is deeply disturbing news. The impacts of climate change are already being felt around Australia at an increasing rate, and there is more to come. We absolutely need to know more about the basic operation of the climate system — how it is changing and how best can we respond to the climate change challenge.”

Suddenly Prof Steven Sherwood (UNSW) is not so sure we understand the climate:

“Larry Marshall surely has a point about rejuvenating organisations and solving new challenges, but I worry about his statement that there is no further need post-COP21 to understand climate change since we now know it is real.”

Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Research Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre UNSW:

“The latest round of job cuts from CSIRO is nothing short of appalling… While we know that the climate is changing because of human activity, we have not simply ‘answered’ that question after the Paris agreement — many more questions remain.”

“… Research in any field does not, and cannot stop after an apparent question has been answered.”

The Climate Pause Continues

Far from the climate apocalypse the climate “scientists” keep on proposing, the global temperature has not changed in 18 years and 9 months.

Back in 2008, scientists said that a pause of 15 years would throw the global warming theory into doubt, but the gravy train keeps rolling on, this month all the way to Paris.

 

 

Sunscreen- Not Climate Change- Killing Reefs

42-34720580

The equivalent of one drop of the active ingredient in sunscreen into 3 1/2 Olympic swimming pools of water is enough to kill corals. Scientists discovered that it is this, not “ocean acidification” or warming allegedly caused by CO2 that is damaging the world’s coral reefs.

From WUWT:

Oops! It may not be ‘ocean acidification’ killing coral after all – common chemical found in sunscreen is poisonous to coral reefs

From the AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY and the “settled science” department:

Sunscreen is proven toxic to coral reefs
Tel Aviv University researchers discover chemical found in most sunscreen lotions poses an existential threat to young corals

 

The daily use of sunscreen bearing an SPF of 15 or higher is widely acknowledged as essential to skin cancer prevention, not to mention skin damage associated with aging. Though this sunscreen may be very good for us, it may be very bad for the environment, a new Tel Aviv University study finds.

New research published inArchives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicologyfinds that a common chemical in sunscreen lotions and other cosmetic products poses an existential threat — even in miniscule concentrations — to the planet’s corals and coral reefs. “The chemical, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), is found in more than 3,500 sunscreen products worldwide. It pollutes coral reefs via swimmers who wear sunscreen or wastewater discharges from municipal sewage outfalls and coastal septic systems,” said Dr. Omri Bronstein of TAU’s Department of Zoology, one of the principal researchers.

The study was conducted by a team of marine scientists from TAU, including Prof. Yossi Loya, also of the Department of Zoology, the Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia, the National Aquarium (US), the US. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and other labs in the US.

Read the full article here

Action on Climate: Stealing From the Poor to Give to the Rich

You never hear from the Greens about how their policies hit the poor and favour the rich.One example of course is that subsidies for roof top solar force up electricity prices for those who cannot use solar power- renters and the poor. But it gets a lot worse as these examples from the US show.

From WUWT:

The Hood Robin Syndrome

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

There’s a new study out, under the imprimatur of the Energy Institute of the Haas School of Business in Berkeley, California, entitledThe Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits.  As the title implies, it looks at who actually profited from the various “green energy” tax credits across the United States. SPOILER ALERT! It wasn’t the poor folks.

How much money are we talking about? Well, the paper says that from 2006 to 2012, the taxpayers have been on the hook for $18 BILLION DOLLARS to fund these subsidies, money that would have otherwise gone into the General Fund.

And just how much money is eighteen billion dollars? Here’s one way to think about eighteen gigabucks, regarding safe, clean drinking water.

Water Wells for Africa reports from their ongoing projects that on average it has cost them about $3.50 per person ($7,000 per well serving 2,000 people) to provide people with clean safe well water. Soeighteen billion dollars is enough money to drill drinking water wells for three-quarters of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants.(Yes, I know that’s a gross simplification, some folks don’t live over a subterranean water table, and so on, but it isstill enough money to drill the two and a half million wells that would be needed.)

So what did we do with this huge amount of money, enough wealth to truly change the lives of the world’s poor?

Well, following the brilliant policies pushed by the Obama Administration and the climate alarmists, we took enough taxpayer money to truly change the lives of the world’s poor folks … and instead, we gave it to the American rich folks.

No kidding! This is not a joke. This is what passes for moral activism in the liberal American universe. Throwing money at the rich is seen as striking a noble blow for POSSIBLY saving the poor from a tenth of a degree of warming by 2100.

Sadly, it’s no joke at all—the whole war on carbon has been a tragedy for the poor. In this case, the result of these misguided tax subsidies, of the type which have been pushed by climate alarmists for years, has been to create a real climate “hockeystick”.

Read the rest here